About your Search

20130101
20130131
STATION
CSPAN 75
LANGUAGE
English 75
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 75 (some duplicates have been removed)
enhancing and building more power grids. pakistan needs power. it needs access to energy. afghanistan needs power. if you create interdependency between these countries, especially countries that are not on friendly terms with each other, which will enhance the chances of stability to allot more more expensive projects could be pipelines and others, but at least the national grid, railroads. fortunately, pakistan is extending its railroad into kandahar. the railroad from central asia will connect now across afghanistan, north and south. we can really rebuild afghanistan as a crossroad or roundabout of trade. that is key. internally, improving access to capital in afghanistan by providing political incentives, in terms of political assurance, making more credit available for investment by international companies in afghanistan, allowing afghan companies to have access to easier credit -- these are the key issues that could help afghanistan on the economic front. more importantly, a clear message about the future of afghanistan that would give the investors and everyone else a sense of confid
.s. and pakistan on that is better coordination between also there appears to be a better clarity of u.s. positions relating to the very important questions. >> i have offered a few comments that have made mr. my experience. i do not have any association with them. texas on liked several others have made policy at stakes. pakistan has suffered but it is not all on the ground or in on the floor of many of their contributions to the region. i would also say they cannot place the blame for all of the problems on to others. the first point of a to make here, this is done talk about credit bet. not as much now. i have not met for several years while i was i in the form office any responsible person from anti civilian leadership who would be seeking to go to afghanistan or who would be considering the taliban as an asset for the future. i am not going to go into details of these as far as the taliban as concerned. there is no question of popular returning to get in why i did enter the mid 1990's. there are reasons for this. there are to be details. i was the before the moment. there is one thing it. paki
pakistan, with respect to the important issues regarding the region. we called the event "back to the future." some people have spoken before about this, and what we mean by that. i think we will let that emerged as the discussion goes on. we know we have a lot of fundamental issues to talk about. certainly, military presence has been an issue talked about in the newspapers all lot. governance is an important issue. technical issues, such as what type of agreements might be signed between the u.s. and afghanistan, are important. the role of pakistan. many others. with that, let me turn to our three speakers, each of whom will speak for six to 10 minutes, roughly speaking. then we'll open it up to dialogue, with the audience. i will give you the floor. >> my responsibilities for afghanistan go back to 2001. it is fair to say i was present at the creation of at least the current regime in kabul. i started by looking back and trying to spot the things we did wrong. it strikes me that there were three fundamental errors, two of which are perceived at the time and tried to do someth
years by the taliban. we succeeded against that. there are executions and -- pakistan is going through a very difficult time. and other of events there, they are all a source of concern for us. i can speak with satisfaction, the suffering that we have had, our schools are safer in the past three years, the great majority of girls go to school in afghanistan do if in safety and security. we have not had any major incidents. and this concern for families and students would be less and less a matter to think of. thank you, sir. >> this will conclude the program. i have one important announcement before i thank our remarkable speaker. please do not leave your seat until you hear the voice in the wilderness that will dismiss us. and only the afghan delegation will depart until such moment. on behalf of all of us, you have given us allot to think about. a lot of inspiration. women are lucky to have your support and we look forward to a wonderful future for your country. thank you so much. [applause] >> friday's news conference with president obama and president karzai. also, president karzai
. affiliated movements have taken us beyond the core leadership in afghanistan and pakistan, including the middle east, and east africa, central asia, and southeast asia. although each group is unique, all aspire to advance al qaeda's agenda by stabilizing the companies in which they operate and attacking the u.s. and plotting to strike it u.s. homeland. in south asia, al qaeda continues to pose a threat from its base of operation in pakistan's tribal areas. in order to use that to carry a attacks against a homeland as well as our interests and those of our allies and partners in pakistan, afghanistan, india, and europe. the united states faces to counter terrorism charges -- a direct threat posed by al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and the individuals and charities that flow from the region to al qaeda and its affiliates from world. on this point particularly, i want to emphasize severing the pipeline is a major part of what we're doing in its administration. al qaeda has shifted its activities to the relative safe haven of northern mali where it is training fighters and other allied
pakistan and india were at a nadir. coins and with 9/11 and the subsequent bond process, a pakistani base -- terrorist group had conducted a large- scale terrorist attack on the indian parliament. the countries were close to war. very close to war. the idea that they would collaborate in some joint venture in afghanistan was more difficult to conceive then that might be now. relations have to some degree improved. i do not think that india and pakistan between them would be able to substitute for the kind of assistance -- [indiscernible] for some time to come. to the extent the country's -- countries could agree on some form of joint collaboration, i would not oppose it. but neither would i look to it to shoulder much of the load in the short to medium term. >> from rote. -- front row. >> i write the mitchell reports and also councilmember. fassel -- i wanted to ask the ambassador about his observations about cost and risk. and to do that in the context of american domestic political setting, just to say that 2014 is not just another year. it is midterms. i wonder if there is a way, if yo
's influential board and has served as a senior advisor as recently as 2011 for afghanistan and pakistan. ladies and gentlemen, dean vali nasr. [cheers and applause] now, when you think of provocative conversation on the big foreign policy challenge of the day you have to think about our next debater. his program on cnn is seen in over 200 countries worldwide but he's anything but a talking head on tv. he writes a column for "the washington post" and is the edit or "time" magazine. please welcome back to the munk debate stage journalist fareed zakaria. [cheers and applause] now we're moments from getting our debate under way but before we hear opening statements, once again, i need this audience assist answer to make sure our debaters stay on time in terms of their opening and closing remark and we move forward as a debate together. so you will see this countdown clock, this clock appear. when it reaches zero applaud. this will let our debaters know that their time is over for their opening and closing statements. before we kick off the debate let's see how the 3,000 people gathered today voted
, or instead, a different kind of mission? and pakistan in particular, the safe havens that are in pakistan, what kind of policy will you have? thank you. >> the mission will be fundamentally different. just to repeat, our main reason , should we have troops in afghanistan post-2014, at the invitation of the afghan government, will be to make sure that we are training, assisting, and advising afghan security forces who have taken the lead and are responsible for security throughout afghanistan and and interest the united states has, the reason we went into first place, is to make sure that al qaeda and its affiliates cannot launch an attack against the united states or other countries from afghanistan. we believe we can achieve that mission in a way that is very different from the very active presence that we have had in afghanistan over the last 11 years. president karzai has emphasized the strains that u.s. troop presence is in afghan villages, for example, has created. that will not be a strain if there is a follow-up operation because that will not be our responsibility. that will be th
as a senior advisor recently as 2011 for afghanistan and pakistan to the late richard holbrook, former munk bedator. now, when you think of provocktiff conversation on the big foreign policy challenges of the day you have to think about our next debator. his flagship global affairs program on cnn is seen in over 200 countries worldwide. but he is anything but a talking head on cable tv. he writes a highly respected column for the "washington post" and is the editor at large of time magazine. his numerous best-selling books include the post american world and the future of freedom. now, we are just moments from getting our debate under way but before we hear opening statements once again i am going to need this audience's assistance as the night goes on to make sure our debators stay on time in terms of their opening and closing remarks and that we move forward as a debate together. so you will see this countdown clock appear when it reaches 0 applaud this will let our debators know that their time is over for their opening and closing statements. and finally before we kick off the debate le
the region including pakistan. we welcome recent steps that have been taken in that regard and will look for more tangible steps because a stable and secure afghanistan is in the interest not only of the afghan people and the united states but of the entire region. and finally we reaffirmed the strategic partnership we signed last year in kabul, an enduring partnership between two sovereign nations. this includes deepening ties with trade, commerce, strengthening institutions, development, education, and opportunities for all afghans. men and women, boys and girls. and this sends a clear message to afghans and to the region as afghans stand up they will not stand alone. the united states and the world stands with them. now, let me close by saying that this continues to be a very difficult mission. our forces continue to serve and make tremendous sacrifices every day. the afghan people make significant sacrifices every day. afghan forces still need to grow stronger. we remain vigilant against insider attacks. lasting peace and security will require governance and development that delivers
and protection in pakistan or iran. in the case of pakistan, we have supported the international efforts to help those refugees finding asylum in pakistan. most of those refugees are not seeking resettlement. unhcr has looked to see if there are pockets of refugees both in pakistan and iran there -- that are in need of resettlement. we started to resettle ravages from both countries. we have a small program out of iran. those people will be there to romania or slovakia. project a large increase for afghanistan but we continue to help unhcr and neighboring countries providing asylum to see where individuals can be helton said large waves of refugees. >> mr. bartlett, you identified you have a two-step process -- to identify those who are eligible for this consideration and to ensure they don't present a risk. explain how you identified when and how somebody is eligible for this process and the first place? >> that is more than a one-step process. our largest partner is the un high commissioner for refugees and the work throughout the world. >> is that an american project organization? >> this is
with facilitation for talks. reconciliation requires constructive support from across the region, including pakistan. we welcome recent steps that have been taken, and look for more tangible steps, because a stable at future afghanistan is in the interest of not only the afghans and the united states but of the entire region. we reaffirmed the strategic partnership that we signed last year in kabul, an enduring partnership between sovereign nations. this includes deepening ties in trade talks, commerce, , education, and opportunities for all afghans, men and women, boys and girls. this sends a clear message to afghans into the region as afghans stand up they will not stand alone. the united states and the world stands with them. let me close by saying this continues to be a very difficult mission. our forces continue to serve and the tremendous sacrifices every day. the afghan people make significant sacrifices every day. afghan forces will still be growing stronger. we remain vigilant against insider attacks. lasting peace and security will require governments at the ballot that delivers for the af
, pakistan, and sudan. historians will judged his senate years on his impact on foreign policy much the same way so many people recognized ted kennedy's impact on domestic policy. from his many years in the u.s. senate, he has developed a very personal understanding that we represent not just states or governments, but also people. i once asked john why he loves the senate. he said it is the pride he feels in trying to get things done for people. for three years now, he has been working quietly to help a father from massachusetts, whose two sons were kidnapped and taken to egypt. john even called former president mubarak and had a screaming match with him about it. five times he has been to egypt and every time, colin has been at the top of his list in every meeting. every senator has a colin -- it is what we do. we fight for people back home. as secretary, john will understand that and bend over backwards to help us do that. he will be a terrific bridge from the hill to the administration. i know that john kerry cares deeply about our country and our national security. i know he believes in
governments recommit to dialogue as the right way forward on this. that's what we support. >> the pakistan form minister still in new york, if anyone had a talk with her? >> i think i mentioned yesterday that her senior meeting with u.s. government officials was with ambassador rice at the u.n. yesterday so i'll refer you to u.s.-u.n. for a readout on that. >> and pakistan? the situation in pakistan, the news media is talking about a situation during the general's takeover and many people say in pakistan it may be linked to 1971. what do you think -- what is the future of the political system in pakistan and now for the last five years or more, they have been going on. >> we had quite a bit to say about this situation yesterday, fundamentally this is an issue for pakistanis to resolve. they've got to resolve their internal political issues in a just and transparent way just to say again pakistan has an established electoral process as outlined in the constitution. that needs to be respected. we support civilian democracy in pakistan. >> just one quick one -- >> you really got a lot today.
headquarters. he was an advisor to four president. -- presidents. he led the afghanistan-pakistan review. bruce has written two books in his time here. a third is about to come out. the first two were about al qaeda. the search for al qaeda and the deadly embrace. the new book coming out next month is "avoiding armageddon." it is about the us -- pakistan -- u.s.-pakistan relationship. general stanley mcchrystal spent 34 years in the new oteri. he was -- in the military. he was the director of the joint staff. in military circles, this five- year. of -- five-year period of joint special operations command is what makes them memorable and historic. the reality is that he has done more to carry the fight to al qaeda since 2001 than any other person in this department, possibly in the country. after that, bob gates got up, and the secretary of defense called him one of the finest men at arms this country as ever produced, then continued over the past decade, no single american has inflicted more fear and more loss of life on our country most vicious and violent enemies than dan mcchrystal -- stan m
that when we leave, the taliban and al qaeda will come back. as long as they're given safe haven in pakistan, they're just waiting for us to leave. i do not see any benefit for our country to remain there. host: some of the callers have said we need to keep at least 10,000. some of the stories we have been reading have said anywhere from 3000-6000. you say we should be out of their completely? caller: yes, i think we should just leave. as long as they have one of the most corrupt governments of their -- as long as pakistan allows the taliban and al qaeda safe havens, they are just waiting for us to leave and they will come back in. host: we are going to move on to paul in illinois. paul served as an officer. what kind of work did you do over there? caller: i was army and i work in civil affairs during reconstruction in the 2010 and 2011. host: what kind of response did you get for the reconstructive work you were doing? caller: it was mixed with the afghan people. in areas interested in the work for reconstruction with medical and education. education is the key to success. one said we have
. >> this program gave us an enormous amount of information about al qaeda in pakistan. the administration continues to use the intelligence every day in drone strikes. it is not just actable intelligence but how they operate. since the program was shut down we have seen the emergence of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. we have had the emergence of al-shabab merging with al qaeda central. and al qaeda in africa. are we struggling in a way? the information we have on pakistan and the lack of information, is it harder to get the intelligence we need because we do not have this tool? >> one of the most important threads of information that i saw when i got there and still in 2006, late in the game, was detainee information. i already suggested to you that i am willing to adjust the detainee program. we have other penetrations and sources and knowledge. we have a better sense of the imminence of attack, what state of danger we are in as a nation. i told you we entered the black side in 2006. - the black site into a dozen sex. -- in 2006. lazy journalists sometimes they we closed them. we did not. we k
and successful diplomatic intervention in afghanistan, pakistan, and sedan. -- sudan. historians will be judged his senate years on his impact on foreign policy at much the same way so many people recognized ted kennedy's impact on domestic policy. from his many years in the u.s. senate, he has developed a very personal understanding that we represent not just states or governments, but also people. i want to ask john why he loves the senate. he said it is the pride he feels in trying to get things done for people. for three years now, he has been working quietly to help a father from massachusetts, whose two sons were kidnapped and taken to eject. john even called former president mubarak and had a screaming match with him about it. five times he has been to egypt and every time, colin has been at the top of his list in every meeting. every senator has -- it is what we do. we fight for people back,. as secretary, john will understand that and bend over backwards to help us do that. he will be a terrific bridge from the hill to the administration. i know that john kerry cares deeply about our c
president. -- presidents. he led the afghanistan-pakistan review. bruce has written two books in his time here. a third is about to come out. the first two were about al qaeda. the search for al qaeda and the deadly embrace. the new book coming out next month is "avoiding armageddon." it is about the us -- pakistan -- u.s.-pakistan relationship. general stanley mcchrystal spent 34 years in the new oteri. he was -- in the military. he was the director of the joint staff. in military circles, this five- year. of -- five-year period of joint special operations command is what makes them memorable and historic. the reality is that he has done more to carry the fight to al qaeda since 2001 than any other person in this department, possibly in the country. after that, bob gates got up, and the secretary of defense called him one of the finest men at arms this country as ever produced, then continued over the past decade, no single american has inflicted more fear and more loss of life on our country most vicious and violent enemies than dan mcchrystal -- stan mcchrystal. that makes him sound pr
threat to united states faces is between the mountains of pakistan and afghanistan. previouslythese are issues thate addressed. where does he think afghanistan is going to go? what did he think at this one point that it was such a vital and strategic interest? the president himself tries to address that issue. senator hagel has made a lot of statements over the years about the middle east and central asia that i think have to be addressed. it is not simply about israel and the u.s.. it is about the statements and the votes that senator hagel been made, sanctions on iran, talking with the dictatorship in syria about not signing a resolution be, asking europe to designate hezbollah as a terrorist organization. votes against signaling that the i iranian revolutionary guard was a terrorist organization. all these things that suggest that his views about the middle east and the palestinian-is really conflict, brought together with those -- israeli conflict, brought together with those other statements. people often say that presidents should be given to deference to his appointees. i agr
is between the mountains of pakistan and afghanistan. today, or previously, he opposed the president's surge in afghanistan. these are issues that need to be addressed. where does he think afghanistan is going to go? why did he think that afghanistan was such a vital, strategic interest and then when the president himself tries to address the issue, he does not support that position? so senator chuck hagel -- i keep putting him in o ffice -- has meant a lot of statements over the years about the middle east and central asia that i think have to be addressed. the is -- the issue that the u.s.-israel relationship was brought up produce the has to be put in context. i think the caller started down that road, which is the fact that it is not simply about israel and the u.s., it is all about the statements that senator chuck hagel made on sanctionsmade on sanctions on id talking with the dictatorship in syria about not signing a resolution or not signing on to a resolution about hezbollah and asking europe to designate hezbollah as a terrorist organization. despite the fact that the killed hundre
policy board and has served as a senior adviser as recently as 2011 for afghanistan and pakistan to the late richard holbrooke, former munk debater. ladies and gentlemen, dean vali nasser. [applause] when you think of provocative conversation on a big foreign policy challenges of the day, you have to think about our next debater. his flagship global affairs overam on cnn is seen in 200 countries worldwide but he is anything but a talking head on cable tv. he rights a highly respected column for "the washington post" and is the editor-at-large of "time" magazine. his numerous best selling books include "the post-american world" and "the future of freedom." please welcome back to the munk debate stage, broadcaster and journalist, fareed zukaria. we are just moments from getting our debate underway but before we hear from opening statements, once again, i'm going to need this audience's assistance as the night goes on to make sure our debaters stay on time in terms of their opening and closing remarks and that we move forward as a debate together so you will see this countdown clock
three questions. one is afghanistan, the sec is pakistan. with regard to afghanistan, i wanted to ask you about the first question relates to president karzai and the leches ahead of them. when he was here just a couple of weeks ago, i had the chance to visit with him in leader mcconnel's office and a number of senators as well. and to ask him directly about the elections and ask him about my second question. but i wanted to get your sense of where you see those lexes going. what efforts you can undertake to make sure that they are free and fair because they've been, i think, central to the next chapter in this transition. i just wanted to comment on that. the second question as it relates to afghanistan is one that senator boxer raised and her work on this has been exemplary, on women and girls and in particular, i have a -- an amendment that we got through the national defense authorization act which would require both state and defense to file a report on the efforts to promote the security of afghan women and girls just by way of itemization monitoring and responding to changes in
drone strikes in pakistan, then read marxists talking about the same thing, you could not tell them apart. marxists would say this shows how evil capitalism is. there is overlap about the particular issue. >> how does the institute fit in with "reason" magazine? >> i see them as policy wants to help shape policy better. there are not doing anything radical. they are trying to say things like, rather than doing social security this way, we will do it this way. people think we have to do single payer health insurance. if we allow for competition, we could have health insurance that would be better than what we have. we tried to influence decisions on capitol hill in a way that is politically feasible, not likely. something that could happen. >> i wrote down a number of institutes you talked about in your book and i wanted to ask you about who finances these. the koch brothers were. you had a falling out with one of the founders. you mentioned the foundation. george mason. how does that fit in? >> another policy group, and i do not pay enough attention to them. >> the frazier institute
libya and egypt and syria and pakistan. we are talking about a world that is changing and is less responsive to u.s. pressure and u.s. military power and diplomacy. that changes something that chuck hagel is aware of and he has well-formed views on. at the heart of that view is that power should be diffused away from the american military and plates and other power centers around the world and that idea itself is controversial. president obama agrees with that and many in congress do not. host: the former senator gave an interview with his former state paper, "the lincoln journal star" he said his critics have distorted his views. guest: it is unusual for a to give any interviews at all but he has faced a much criticism that he wanted to get one opening salvo out there and that is what he did. he basically said that he will have a chance to correct the record during his confirmation hearing. we should note from that interview that he is not backing down from any of his positions. he is not saying he no longer believes in the things that he believed in that were so controversial. h
served as a senior advisor as recently as 2011 for afghanistan and pakistan to the late richard holbrook, a former munk debater. ladies and gentlemen, dean vali nasser. [applause] now, when you think of provocative conversation on a big foreign policy challenges of the day, you have to think about our next debater. his flagship global affairs program on cnn is seen in over 200 countries worldwide. but he is anything but a talking head on cable tv. he writes a highly respected column for the post and is the editor at large of "time" magazine. his numerous best selling books include "the post-american world" and "the future of freedom." please welcome back broadcaster and journalist, fareed zakaria. [applause] now we are just momenting from getting our debate under way but before we hear from opening statements, one again i'm going to need this audience's assistance as the night goes on to make sure our debaters stay on time in terms of their opening and closing remarks and that we move forward as a debate together. so you will see this countdown clock, this handy clock appear. when it rea
and pakistan. ladies and gentlemen, dean vali nasr. [cheers and applause] now, when you think of provocative conversation on the big foreign policy challenge of the day you have to think about our next debater. his program on cnn is seen in over 200 countries worldwide but he's anything but a talking head on tv. he writes a column for "the washington post" and is the edit or "time" magazine. please welcome back to the munk debate stage journalist fareed zakaria. [cheers and applause] now we're moments from getting our debate under way but before we hear opening statements, once again, i need this audience assist answer to make sure our debaters stay on time in terms of their opening and closing remark and we move forward as a debate together. so you will see this countdown clock, this clock appear. when it reaches zero applaud. this will let our debaters know that their time is over for their opening and closing statements. before we kick off the debate let's see how the 3,000 people gathered today voted on our resolution that the world cannot tolerate iran with nuclear weapons. let's see t
. he was advisor to four presidents, president obama asked him to lead his afghanistan-pakistan policy review in early 2009 and he did that for a couple of months before happily, for us, returning to brookings. bruce has written already two books in the time he's been here, actually a third is about to come out, i'll mention that in just a second, but the first two were about al qaeda and then about the u.s.-pakistan relationship "the deadly embrace." . his new book, coming out next month is "avoiding armageddon" and it's the story about the u.s.-india-pakistan relationship and crisis management over the last half century or so. general stan mcchrystal is a 1976 graduate of west point. spent 34 years in the u.s. army. retiring as a four-star general in the summer of 2010. he has been commander in afghanistan. he was the director of the joint staff. but perhaps in military circles, most of all, as i mentioned, this five-year period at joint special operations command makes him memorable and historic. general casey at his retirement ceremony in 2010 said that the reality is that stan has
understand in when you went to islamabad, pakistan, in 2006, you said at that time a military strike against iran, a military option is not a viable, feasible or responsible option. now it seems what you're saying about the military option now seems inconsistent and why would you make that statement in pakistan that it's not a viable, feasible or responsible option in light of your statement today that you do, i have, and i stockly agree that a military option should be on the table. >> that statement was made in respect to all options with iran. and pakistan was where i was at the time. and the larger context of that was nuclear powers which certainly pakistan is part of that. and not unlike what secretary gates said on a strike on iran. my point was that this would not be a preferable option land the would be consequences to this option. things would happen as a result of it. if we could find a better option or way to deal with iran to assure they do not get nuclear weapons, then we are far better off. that was the context of that statement. >> i know my time is up and we will have an oppo
at the instability in pakistan. this is a real danger we have to think about in the future. if we ignore them, that is a prescription for getting more americans killed. host: i want to get your reaction to what the secretary of state had to say yes today. here's what she had to say. [video clip] guest: i think you would hear the same from the intelligence community or dod. the work that was done in afghanistan and pakistan, they have taken out a whole cadre of leadership. people have migrated back to other parts of the world who are affiliates, part of the jihad syndicate. they are extremists and have designs on overthrowing existing governments, control and territory. there has been the decimation of al qaeda in the afghanistan- pakistan region, we have to contend with the wannabes and the affiliate's going forward. host: any reaction? guest: there has been a loss of capacity on the part of al qaeda central and pakistan. because osama bin laden is dead, that doesn't mean allocate it is dead -- it does mean al qaeda is dead. they are very much alive. they have migrated. they are now seeing a
public and successful diplomatic interventions in afghanistan, pakistan and sudan. i think one day historians will judge his senate years in temperatures terms of his impact on foreign policy much the same way so many recognize senator ted kennedy's impact on domestic policy. from his many years in the u.s. senate, john has developed a very personal understanding that we represent not just states or government but also people. i once asked john why he loves the senate. he said, it's the pride he feels in trying to get things done for people. for three years now, he's been working quietly to help a father from newton, massachusetts, colin bauer, whose two sons were kidnapped and taken to egypt. john even called former president mubarak and had a screaming match with him about it. five times he's been to egypt since then and every time colin has been at the top of his list in every meeting. every senator here has a colin bauer. it's what we do. we fight for people back home. as secretary, john will understand that and bend over backwards to help us do that. he will be a terrific brid
by pakistani authorities in pakistan. another was arrested in thailand by police. another detainee arrested in dubai, and yet another arrested in somalia. this notion that we have to have this special forum because of the battlefield conditions is a great smokescreen for this second rate process that says more about us than it does about the people we're trying to bring before us. another important piece is the issue of torture. the senate select committee on intelligence recently concluded completed their report, and you probably saw john mccain and dianne feinstein say that the report concludes that torture did not work. it is a stain on our reputation. it is important that that report be released to the public, particularly after the premiere of "zero dark thirty," which reports to be -- which purports to be a factual account of capturing osama bin laden. that movie will become the public's perception of reality, and it is a lie. i think that movie makes it doubly important for the senate select committee's report to be declassified so the public and at least have a debate that is based
and the mideast around pakistan and afghanistan, as you quote on your -- close on your tenure i wondered if you'd share some important lessons learned from the time you spent in this post and enlighten us as to what congress can do to help respond and get in front of these threats as we move forward and related to that, if i may, assuming that you're going to say about increased engagement at the ground level. how do we do that in areas that are unstable where we need to depend on local government or local security forces that quite frankly we've seen don't have the ability to provide the type of security that our diplomats are going to demand? see you here. i thank you for your interest in looking sort of into the future. let me just make a couple of points. first, we have a lot of tools that we don't use as well as we should. i think we've abdicated the broadcasting arena where both in tv and radio, which are considered kind of old fashioned, media are still very important in a lot of difficult places where we're trying to do business. i think we have to get our act together. i would hope thi
of afghanistan and pakistan -- previously opposed the surge in afghanistan. these are issues the need to be addressed. where do we think afghanistan is going to go? why did he think at one point that afghanistan was such a strategic interest? senator hagel has made a lot of statements over the years about the middle east and central asia that i think have to be addressed. israel-u.s. relationships have to be put into context. i think the caller started them. but the fact is not simply that it is between the u.s. and israel, there are statements the senator made on the sanctions on iran. top of the dictatorship in syria. not signing on to a resolution, asking europe to designate hezbollah as a terrorist organization. on and on. the context suggests that his views about the middle east and his use about the palestinian it-is really conflict have to be brought together with those other statements to get a bigger picture of how he thinks about the middle east. i think it is rare that a nominee -- i do think that people often say the president should give deference to his and -- to his app
changes in the blood. a patient comes back after treatment a year later for a pakistan -- a pet span, we will be able to catch things and minds for them before they occur. we can stop the cancer before it stops -- we can stop the cancer before it starts again. >> previously here las vegas you were quoted as saying that we are making progress to ultimately make the google map of the cell. what does that mean? >> imagine the l.a. highway. imagine a blueprint been developed at a downtown los angeles architectural firm and then being out in beautiful laguna beach. and a courier can hit the 405, the 33, the 401. the blueprint has to get to the manufacturing to get the cancer protein is made. the goal mouth of the cell is being able to look -- the google map of the cell is being able to look at the cell and put that out on top of the cell. the dna is where the cancer is. the rna follows protein highway systems to get through the cell to the area that makes the bad proteins. when technology comes together, we can begin to understand that it is difficult to change the blueprint. but what we can
to the house on monday, is that the risks are changing but we still face the biggest risk from the afghanistan-pakistan area, but the proportion of the risks we face from the very has declined so we are able to use resources as we draw down in afghanistan to cope with the other risks that we face. but the overall point is absolutely that yes, we are going to have a smaller regular army, although the extra reserves will be at the overall level of our army hardly changes the size, but it would be better equipped, more capable, more mobile, more capable of dealing with the modern threats that we face. >> graham stuart. >> tournament. can i congratulate the prime minister on the speech on europe this morning, and -- mr. speaker, this premise has a history of going to bat for britain and the party opposite has a history of going in and surrendering. but can ask the prime minister is the difference between that site and decide. that side wants to deny them. >> i think my honorable friend makes a very important point. frankly, the british public have seen treaty after treaty introduced to this house passing p
are changing. we still face the biggest risk from the afghanistan-pakistan area, but the proportion of the risks that we face from that area has declined. we are able to use resources as we draw down in afghanistan to cope with the other risks that we face. the overall point is absolutely, yes, we are going to have a smaller regular army, although the extra reserves will mean that the overall level of our army hardly changes the size. they will be better equipped, more capable, more mobile, more capable of dealing with the modern threats we face. >> i congratulate the prime minister on his speech on europe this morning. this prime minister has a history of going in to bat for britain. labour party has a history of going in and surrendering things such as the rebate. is not the big difference between that side and that's that this side trusts the people on that side wants them to deny them a say? klutz my honorable friend makes an important point. frankly, the british public have seen treaty after treaty introduced to this house, passing powers from westminster to brussels. they have
. the terribly difficult challenge dealing with and reducing the flow of calcium ammonium nitrate from pakistan into afghanistan which finds its way into the roadside bombs that kill our troops, known as ied's. thank you for the work. the work on behalf of women throughout the world but also women and girls particularly in afghanistan and even though we are still in the throes of responding to the challenges in syria, the great work you have done on humanitarian assistance and other elements of that strategy we have worked together on. i also want to commend the words he spoke today about not retreating when it comes to getting that balance right queen engagement and also security. both high priorities. i was struck by and i am glad you were so is this a bit on page 3 of your testimony about -- you were so pacific on page 3 of your testimony. the recommendation by the board which now has found its way into the jake now is a set of 64 specific action items. you said 85% are on track to be completed by the end of march. what if any impediments and implementation do you perceive right now and are
down drone attacks on al qaeda affiliates in pakistan, yemen, will not use other counterterrorism resources to identify, locate and detain the terrorists involved in the death of our ambassador and others in libya. this inconsistent policy may stem from the president's hasty campaign promise to shut down guantanamo bay, gitmo, prematurely transfer detention facilities in iraq and afghanistan. in doing so the president effectively ended america's ability to detain and interrogate terrorists, depriving the f.b.i., the c.i.a. and other agencies of critical opportunities to obtain information on al qaeda networks. today, as the case of benghazi suspect harzi, has demonstrated, the united states is completely reliant on the cooperation of host countries to detain on our behalf and selectively allow access to suspects. as in the case of harzi, as demonstrated, this approach is fraught with diplomatic roadblocks, costing critical time and getting information from suspects to track terrorist networks. perhaps that is why president obama so often opts to use lethal drone strikes to kill te
and japan? i'm not sure about the muslim brotherhood aid but on pakistan that's been a big issue, both republicans and depps have said, we need to pare back that aid to pakistan. senator rand paul has been pushing that. others like senator john mccain say, we can't just cut them off. foreign aid is very important if we want to get them to do what we want them to do and foster democracy. host: before we let you go here, we're going to take another phone cull, but tell us the fresh minnesota class, some names and faces people should be looking out for, people who might make a name for themselves in the 113th? guest: one is senator tim kaine, he beat george allen in the election, a former governor, he's close to president obama. he was almost picked as vice president. obama and kain talked about him running in the senate, then he ended up winning. that's a democrat to watch. you have to watch the democrats in the senate. elizabeth warren won a huge battle with senator scott broun. -- scott brown. how is she going to operate? the financial industry is a little nervous about elizabeth warre
, pakistan, afghanistan. they have embedded people that have knowledge of languages, they have saved houses, translators, armored cars in some cases, bodyguards, and even when they send people into a place like syria, their own medical personnel. they are really the only paper that does for news at that level, or close. "the washington post" has often had this polite idea that all they have to do for for news is it to the ambassadors in washington or go to the u.n. they are going to do the washington news, right? the beltway. but they do not do for news, and they are historic we probably the second best paper in the country. one of the ways, if they survive, ultimately, the people who steal their foreign news will have to pay for it. none of the major networks are doing foreign news at this level. although, i did want to say something to be fair. last night, cnn had people in syria. that was the most impressive thing that i have seen outside of "the new york times" in a very long time. they had somebody in the north of syria, and that was impressive, but still not what we are talking about,
availability on thursday afternoon. >> what is happening at the india and pakistan border? this time it is kind of a serious matter took place and fightings are happening at the border. according to -- [indiscernible] with president karzai coming here and things going on in washington and what is happening in afghanistan. what if india -- it might be hurting inya. >> well, the issue of tensions between india and pakistan is something that the secretary knows very well. we all hope that we can maintain peace and stability in the region. the secretary has affirmed that on visits throughout that region including to india. on tissue of terrorism, let me say that we stand with everyone in the world to include those in india and pakistan who take a hard line against terrorists who want to kill civilians whether they are pakistani, indian or american civilians. we believe there needs to be a united front against terrorist groups operating in that part of the world and others. >> as transition to what is the last time that the secretary had been asked by yained of any kind of help -- are they going to
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 75 (some duplicates have been removed)